Is the Man of Steel Doomed?

[Eradicator]

I honestly think that if MOS does not do well, the future of the Superman character altogether is going to be in serious trouble. DC, for many years now, simply does not know what to do with the character.

No offense to the Silver Age fanboys, but the 1986 reboot got many things right, and until the Death of Superman arc, we were given solid, consistent Superman stories. The creative teams stayed on the books for a while, and they were able to craft a growing continuity, coupled with a wide array of compelling supporting characters. You really got the sense that Superman's world was evolving and maturing, but after the Death/Return stunt, DC just kept on piling on cheap stunts and gimmicks to keep people interested, and Superman has been limping on ever since.

No one asked for the Birthright redo, or the Infinite Crisis reboot, or even the new 52. They simply keep pushing the reset button on the character, with no clear idea of what the hell they are doing.

The upcoming film really is the last hope for the character and for Superman fans, because if the film is a disappointment, I shudder at the thought of what DC/WB might do next. Although I accept the fact that Superman represents the prime superhero archetype, there is something about the character that is pushing people away for whatever, and so far, I don't think anyone has been able to figure it out.

[zryson]

If MOS underperforms and isn't as successful as WB is no doubt hoping it will be, then I expect they will simply try again since the real money lays in movies these days. The real question though is will it be as successful they want it to be to launch the JL onto the screen. I have doubts about that part of the question.

[Namtab]

If MOS underperforms and isn't as successful as WB is no doubt hoping it will be, then I expect they will simply try again since the real money lays in movies these days. The real question though is will it be as successful they want it to be to launch the JL onto the screen. I have doubts about that part of the question.

They would definitely try again, but unless there are contractual issues with the S&S heirs, I could see WB sitting on it for maybe a decade.

While WB is eager to get another franchise(s) running, now that Harry Potter is all done, I don't know that they'd keep throwing money behind Superman, if he isn't working for them. WB is one of the biggest movie companies out there, but they have more on their minds than just their DC properties.

[Legato]

Lets be realistic here. Superman, the character, is going to be just fine even if MoS do bomb. The only drawback is that we wont be seeing any Superman films for awhile. It's like when Batman and Robin bombed, they stopped making Batman films but Batman the character still remain. Now in the event MoS do bomb I'd like to see them do something different with a Superman film, by different do not do a origin movie. Everyone and their own mother knows where Superman came from so unless you do something dramatically different with that don't do another two hour movie of the same old formula. If they want just do a brieg five minute origin prologue then began with Superman already Superman.

[Mat001]

Right, it took eight years before another Batman film was released. Course, work began on trying to bring the Bat back to the big screen in 2001 with "Year One", "Batman Beyond", "Batman Vs Superman" and "The Dark Knight Returns" all being either worked on, or were in talks. Meanwhile we had four animated films and appearances in animated series, a live action spin-off series, a series of On Star commercials and video games. Not to mention other merchandise.

[Kurosawa]

Lets be realistic here. Superman, the character, is going to be just fine even if MoS do bomb. The only drawback is that we wont be seeing any Superman films for awhile. It's like when Batman and Robin bombed, they stopped making Batman films but Batman the character still remain. Now in the event MoS do bomb I'd like to see them do something different with a Superman film, by different do not do a origin movie. Everyone and their own mother knows where Superman came from so unless you do something dramatically different with that don't do another two hour movie of the same old formula. If they want just do a brieg five minute origin prologue then began with Superman already Superman.

Ah yes, but they they'd have to come up with something new, and this is Hollywood we're talking about.

[Darth Joker]

I honestly think that if MOS does not do well, the future of the Superman character altogether is going to be in serious trouble. DC, for many years now, simply does not know what to do with the character.

No offense to the Silver Age fanboys, but the 1986 reboot got many things right, and until the Death of Superman arc, we were given solid, consistent Superman stories. The creative teams stayed on the books for a while, and they were able to craft a growing continuity, coupled with a wide array of compelling supporting characters. You really got the sense that Superman's world was evolving and maturing, but after the Death/Return stunt, DC just kept on piling on cheap stunts and gimmicks to keep people interested, and Superman has been limping on ever since.

No one asked for the Birthright redo, or the Infinite Crisis reboot, or even the new 52. They simply keep pushing the reset button on the character, with no clear idea of what the hell they are doing.

The upcoming film really is the last hope for the character and for Superman fans, because if the film is a disappointment, I shudder at the thought of what DC/WB might do next. Although I accept the fact that Superman represents the prime superhero archetype, there is something about the character that is pushing people away for whatever, and so far, I don't think anyone has been able to figure it out.

I found this post very interesting, and it prompted a lot of thought for me.

I think that you're basically right - From the mid-90s on, DC seemed to have no clear idea of what to do with Superman. Don't get me wrong, there were some good Superman stories from the mid-90s on, but more often than not the character seemed vaguely directionless to me.


I think I know what the issue is, and I think this is something that Man of Steel might be trying to rectify.


Today's world is a bit more cynical than the world of the 1950s, the 1960s, or even just a couple decades ago. Nonetheless, people clearly love superheroes and want to sort of believe in them. But I think there's an initial hurdle that the modern superhero has to get over that wasn't necessary in the past. And that hurdle is answering the "Why?" question.

In other words - Why are you a superhero? Why have you chosen to invest so much time and effort into being a hero when you could use that time and effort to enrich yourself in some way?

Whichever hero is being portrayed has to be able to answer that "why?" question convincingly.


Now, let's look at Batman and Spiderman for points of comparison. Bruce Wayne's parents were gunned down by murderous crooks when Bruce was only 8 years old. Nothing more really needs to be said, does it? Crime took a young boy's beloved parents away, and so that boy is going to make crime pay. Plus, Bruce Wayne is already wealthy. It's easy to buy into "Batman" and why he chooses to be the crime-fighting hero that he is.

Spiderman actually did try to use his powers to enrich himself. That's all he cared about, and so he let a crook get away. The crook that ultimately killed his beloved Uncle Ben. Again, nothing more really needs to be said, does it? Spiderman, like Batman, learned the terrible impact that crime can have. And in Spiderman's case, he also learned the terrible cost that irresponsible selfishness can have. It's easy to buy into "Spiderman" and why he chooses to be the crime-fighting superhero.

Now... why is Superman Superman? Did criminals also kill someone important to him? Well, not really... Superman landed as a baby in Kansas, and was raised with good values by the Kents. Combined with his own strong sense of morality, Superman decided to be a champion for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. There was a time when this was perfectly fine, but maybe in today's world this lacks a certain "punch" compared to what Batman and Spiderman endured. I think that people are looking for something a bit more personal, a bit more emotional, and a bit more visceral than that.

One problem is probably that people like the Kents aren't as common today as they used to be. In other words, a lot of people can't relate to being raised by parents like the Kents. But people still tend to love their close family members, whatever their faults, so the stories of Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker still ring as true today as ever.

So Superman needs to answer the "Why?" question. Once that's done, I think more casual movie-going audiences can feel the story a bit more, dig a bit deeper into it, get the character better. And so what I think Man of Steel is aiming for is a conflict between father and son - a conflict that I'm sure many rebellious teens (or people that were rebellious teens in their youth) can relate to. Conflicts between parent and child will often leave the child with a strong desire to "prove himself/herself". And I think that's what we're going to see with Superman in Man of Steel. Superman will fight to be accepted, he will fight to prove his case to his father, that will be the intensely personal element that helps drive Superman onward in Man of Steel. And how many kids struggle to be accepted? Will they find a relateable champion in Superman?

Personally, the classic Superman origin is good enough for me. However, if adding some stronger elements to it is necessary to winning over more people to Superman, then maybe it's worth it. Maybe once Superman answers the "Why?" question, he'll once again soar as the most beloved superhero of them all.

[Kurosawa]

I found this post very interesting, and it prompted a lot of thought for me.

I think that you're basically right - From the mid-90s on, DC seemed to have no clear idea of what to do with Superman. Don't get me wrong, there were some good Superman stories from the mid-90s on, but more often than not the character seemed vaguely directionless to me.


I think I know what the issue is, and I think this is something that Man of Steel might be trying to rectify.


Today's world is a bit more cynical than the world of the 1950s, the 1960s, or even just a couple decades ago. Nonetheless, people clearly love superheroes and want to sort of believe in them. But I think there's an initial hurdle that the modern superhero has to get over that wasn't necessary in the past. And that hurdle is answering the "Why?" question.

In other words - Why are you a superhero? Why have you chosen to invest so much time and effort into being a hero when you could use that time and effort to enrich yourself in some way?

Whichever hero is being portrayed has to be able to answer that "why?" question convincingly.


Now, let's look at Batman and Spiderman for points of comparison. Bruce Wayne's parents were gunned down by murderous crooks when Bruce was only 8 years old. Nothing more really needs to be said, does it? Crime took a young boy's beloved parents away, and so that boy is going to make crime pay. Plus, Bruce Wayne is already wealthy. It's easy to buy into "Batman" and why he chooses to be the crime-fighting hero that he is.

Spiderman actually did try to use his powers to enrich himself. That's all he cared about, and so he let a crook get away. The crook that ultimately killed his beloved Uncle Ben. Again, nothing more really needs to be said, does it? Spiderman, like Batman, learned the terrible impact that crime can have. And in Spiderman's case, he also learned the terrible cost that irresponsible selfishness can have. It's easy to buy into "Spiderman" and why he chooses to be the crime-fighting superhero.

Now... why is Superman Superman? Did criminals also kill someone important to him? Well, not really... Superman landed as a baby in Kansas, and was raised with good values by the Kents. Combined with his own strong sense of morality, Superman decided to be a champion for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. There was a time when this was perfectly fine, but maybe in today's world this lacks a certain "punch" compared to what Batman and Spiderman endured. I think that people are looking for something a bit more personal, a bit more emotional, and a bit more visceral than that.

One problem is probably that people like the Kents aren't as common today as they used to be. In other words, a lot of people can't relate to being raised by parents like the Kents. But people still tend to love their close family members, whatever their faults, so the stories of Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker still ring as true today as ever.

So Superman needs to answer the "Why?" question. Once that's done, I think more casual movie-going audiences can feel the story a bit more, dig a bit deeper into it, get the character better. And so what I think Man of Steel is aiming for is a conflict between father and son - a conflict that I'm sure many rebellious teens (or people that were rebellious teens in their youth) can relate to. Conflicts between parent and child will often leave the child with a strong desire to "prove himself/herself". And I think that's what we're going to see with Superman in Man of Steel. Superman will fight to be accepted, he will fight to prove his case to his father, that will be the intensely personal element that helps drive Superman onward in Man of Steel. And how many kids struggle to be accepted? Will they find a relateable champion in Superman?

Personally, the classic Superman origin is good enough for me. However, if adding some stronger elements to it is necessary to winning over more people to Superman, then maybe it's worth it. Maybe once Superman answers the "Why?" question, he'll once again soar as the most beloved superhero of them all.

I think what Morrison is doing is the direction they need to go in: not only did his parents raise him to do good, they brought him up with a specific agenda: to be the Champion of the Oppressed. If you have a Clark Kent who is raised up seeing how the people are exploited and used by the wealthy establishment, then that gives Superman a more specific purpose and opponent. It also makes the corporate Luthor a better foil.

[Legato]

I wouldn't want Lex to be this one dimensional villain though. I'd like a Lex Luthor who has motivations that we could agree with as to why he's doing what he's doing. A best written villain is that of a complex one who honestly believes that what he is doing is for the greater good.

[The Batman]

I wouldn't want Lex to be this one dimensional villain though. I'd like a Lex Luthor who has motivations that we could agree with as to why he's doing what he's doing. A best written villain is that of a complex one who honestly believes that what he is doing is for the greater good.

Sure, unless they're the Joker.

[Zionite1]

I think what Morrison is doing is the direction they need to go in: not only did his parents raise him to do good, they brought him up with a specific agenda: to be the Champion of the Oppressed. If you have a Clark Kent who is raised up seeing how the people are exploited and used by the wealthy establishment, then that gives Superman a more specific purpose and opponent. It also makes the corporate Luthor a better foil.

Exactly.Ive noticed that ever since the Golden age Superman has lost having a specific agenda and that makes him kinda directionless.During the Golden age Superman specifically fights against oppression just like Batman fights against Crime.Nowadays Superman just fights random alien/Robot/Mad Scientist attacks.

Like you said Morrsion had the right idea to have Superman fight oppression but he actually seems to have lost it and degenerated back to Superman fighting random aliens and so on.Dont get me wrong Morrision is doing a great job nevertheless.

Like i said Supermans stories shld be primarily be about Supermans fight against world oppression.(That means the world Superman lives in is being Oppressed).Sure Superman can fight aliens,Robots and Metas but they must be somehow intricately tied to the story of Supermans fight against oppression from tose in power.

You do this Supermans comics stories will have a more clear cut path,just like Batman currently has.

As You also pionted out that explaining Supermans motivation to fight oppression is rather easy to execute- If you have a Clark Kent who is raised up seeing how the people like his parents are exploited and used by the wealthy establishment,you make Clarks goals quite personal

[Flash Gordon]

Exactly.Ive noticed that ever since the Golden age Superman has lost having a specific agenda and that makes him kinda directionless.During the Golden age Superman specifically fights against oppression just like Batman fights against Crime.Nowadays Superman just fights random alien/Robot/Mad Scientist attacks.

Like you said Morrsion had the right idea to have Superman fight oppression but he actually seems to have lost it and degenerated back to Superman fighting random aliens and so on.Dont get me wrong Morrision is doing a great job nevertheless.

Like i said Supermans stories shld be primarily be about Supermans fight against world oppression.(That means the world Superman lives in is being Oppressed).Sure Superman can fight aliens,Robots and Metas but they must be somehow intricately tied to the story of Supermans fight against oppression from tose in power.

You do this Supermans comics stories will have a more clear cut path,just like Batman currently has.

As You also pionted out that explaining Supermans motivation to fight oppression is rather easy to execute- If you have a Clark Kent who is raised up seeing how the people like his parents are exploited and used by the wealthy establishment,you make Clarks goals quite personal

Well you can easily have Superman fighting oppression without it becoming a comic book version of the 6 o'clock news, with a flying man in tights.

Oppression comes in many forms, and I think Morrison has the right idea. Superman is the embodiment of the human spirit. The will to press on.

To add my two cents: I love the idea of Superman coming from the heartland of America to the big city and becoming the mortal enemy of this Donald Trump. Lex Luthor can buy anything he wants, just not Superman.

[Sonofspam]

So Warner Bros. is finally taking another shot at a Superman movie, despite the critical failure of the 2006 reboot Superman returns. So is this a 2nd attempt at a reboot? 1 would assume so.

How will they handle it this time? Did they learn from the mistakes in Superman returns? how will they handle the Lois / Clark relationship, Will the origin of Superman be re imagined? How will they handle the somewhat absurd secret ID of SM? Is there a Superman curse? Do you have high or low expectations for this film?

Can you really consider the 2006 a reboot? it used the same continuity as the first two films.

[Sonofspam]

I honestly think that if MOS does not do well, the future of the Superman character altogether is going to be in serious trouble. DC, for many years now, simply does not know what to do with the character.

No offense to the Silver Age fanboys, but the 1986 reboot got many things right, and until the Death of Superman arc, we were given solid, consistent Superman stories. The creative teams stayed on the books for a while, and they were able to craft a growing continuity, coupled with a wide array of compelling supporting characters. You really got the sense that Superman's world was evolving and maturing, but after the Death/Return stunt, DC just kept on piling on cheap stunts and gimmicks to keep people interested, and Superman has been limping on ever since.

No one asked for the Birthright redo, or the Infinite Crisis reboot, or even the new 52. They simply keep pushing the reset button on the character, with no clear idea of what the hell they are doing.

The upcoming film really is the last hope for the character and for Superman fans, because if the film is a disappointment, I shudder at the thought of what DC/WB might do next. Although I accept the fact that Superman represents the prime superhero archetype, there is something about the character that is pushing people away for whatever, and so far, I don't think anyone has been able to figure it out.

I think modern audiences probably find him too dull and too much of a boy scout i'm guessing.

[Mike Pothier]

I wouldn't want Lex to be this one dimensional villain though. I'd like a Lex Luthor who has motivations that we could agree with as to why he's doing what he's doing. A best written villain is that of a complex one who honestly believes that what he is doing is for the greater good.

Yes, Luthor is best when he believes he is the true hero, and saving the world from Superman.